Friday, February 10, 2012

BBC on Sport and Politicians

So Alex Salmond gets banned from appearing on BBC TV Sport while a few days later the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is giving his views on the English Football managerial crises. If it is acceptable for ITV news channel to get the Prime Minister's views on English Football, why is it not suitable for Alex Salmond to be interviewed about Scottish Rugby on a sports channel being run by the BBC?

The truth is that the 'establishment' is more than happy to use any excuse they can think of to stop Alex Salmond coming on TV and dispersing away any of the UK's propaganda about Alex being this, that, or the other thing. When the general public see a pleasant politician making sense and then compare that to the biased coverage that they were unleashing about him on the Scottish and British media sites it dispels any negative notion in the general public's mind that the UK are desperate to portray Alex Salmond as.
The UK government must know that, unless they can fiddle the result, they are going to lose in the referendum. So why annoy a population of a country that the rUK are going to have to trade with? We have a lot of resources that they will like to get their hands on. I believe it is because the Britnats cannot help themselves. I believe it is because they are so corrupted in themselves that their first reaction is to try and destroy and control what they see as within their sphere of influence. They are an abomination to democracy and would rather see a country destroyed than not get its own way. After independence we are going to have to deal with those types as they try to wrest whatever control they can from us.
Still, its good training for dealing with the big boys in world politics. The object being to stand your ground at all times and show that you are not afraid of them and then duck at the right time as the bullet whizzes passed you.

6 comments:

There have been murmurings that the rUK would simply not be big enough or rich enough to justify its position on the security council... ie the big gun wielder.

If the UK breakup took place in 2014, that would mean whoever got in as prime minister, foreign secretary....and all the other titles they give themselves would no long be such a big player on the international stage.

This would be more likely if Obama were to win and serve a second term, and was president at the time. He's no great lover of Britain, having as he does, Kenyan descent.

(Mind you, I take the view that if Britain has to go, then France would have to go too. Neither is justifiable if the number of permanent members in continued at 5, and if one goes surely the other would have to.)

India, Brazil, Japan, Saudi Arabia all have greater claims than the UK of France, although they have always demanded that the members be nuclear powers, so India looks the most likely. but in a post cold war world maybe the nuclear option is no longer a qualifier.

Anyway. It's not just losing Scotland, and the oil that will matter... it's also the horror of not being able to ponse about the world like Genghis Khan that worries all these little people.

Personally, Tris I can't see the USA getting rid of the UK, or rUK as it should be known, just because it will lose Scotland. After all, the rUK will still be buying the nuclear weapons that help the USA's balance of payments.The problem with adding India to the security council, from the USA's point of view, is that they are a member of the non-aligned nations and may not support the policies of the USA.I've said it before and I'll say it again: from our point of view, after Scottish independence, the rUK can do anything it wants. If it still wants to mince around the world pretending it is one of the big boys then good luck to it.

On this occasion, having been approached by the First Minister’s office, BBC Sport asked for advice and with the full agreement of both the Head of TV Sport and the Director of BBC Scotland, the judgment was made that the Scotland-England match was not an appropriate setting in which to give one single political leader that level of prominence. The topicality of the current political debate over the future relationship of Scotland with the rest of the UK – and with England in particular – was one of the factors taken into account.

A similar suggestion that the First Minister might take part in BBC Radio Scotland’s rugby coverage had already been declined. Radio Five Live also turned down the offer of an interview with the First Minister following advice from the CPA.

Are you attempting to say that the BBC is NOT biased in its coverage of political matters in Scotland. Even a screaming Unionist like yourself knows that is not the case. You and I both know that the BBC has the full backing of the state. The state is now in a political poker game with the SNP and their aims, which happen to clash with the aims of the UK government, hence the aims of the BBC as well.